:00:42. > :00:46.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Are church and
:00:46. > :00:48.state heading for a messy divorce over gay marriage? The Church of
:00:48. > :00:51.England has this morning issued a highly critical response to the
:00:51. > :00:53.Government's plans to allow gay couples in England and Wales to
:00:53. > :00:58.marry, warning that the legislation could undermine the church's
:00:58. > :01:02.established status. The UN says it's gravely concerned
:01:02. > :01:06.about the escalation of violence in Syria. We'll be talking to former
:01:06. > :01:09.Liberal Democrat Leader, Paddy Ashdown.
:01:09. > :01:12.Cricketing hero, Ian Botham, steps up to the crease to deal with a
:01:12. > :01:14.problem that's stumped politicians. He'll be with us later in the
:01:14. > :01:18.programme. And feeling blue? Is the bad
:01:18. > :01:25.weather getting you down? We'll be asking if we can blame the Prime
:01:25. > :01:28.Minister. All that in the next hour and with
:01:28. > :01:35.us for the whole programme today is the chair of the Equality and Human
:01:35. > :01:40.Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips. Welcome to the programme. Good
:01:40. > :01:42.afternoon. Now first this morning let's talk about health because
:01:42. > :01:45.later today ministers will confirm that doctors and NHS managers will
:01:45. > :01:48.be banned by law from denying older patients treatment simply on the
:01:48. > :01:51.grounds of their age. It follows a series of reports showing that
:01:51. > :01:58.older people often suffer sub- standard care and uneven treatment
:01:58. > :02:05.in the NHS and the social care system. Is this something you
:02:05. > :02:10.support? It is terrific and long overdue. The original argument was
:02:10. > :02:15.it you introduced age discretion legislation it would move Dr's
:02:15. > :02:21.discretion. But you have to have some protection for people who are
:02:21. > :02:25.older. On top of that, what you cannot have, which existed in the
:02:25. > :02:28.health service, our blanket rules that say people over a certain age
:02:28. > :02:35.may not have some treatment it you would give automatically to
:02:35. > :02:39.somebody under that age. So you have treatments denied to a fit 65-
:02:39. > :02:44.year-old, who can run 10 miles a day, to an unfit for two year-old
:02:44. > :02:49.who can barely walk to the shops. It is a reasonable approach and it
:02:49. > :02:54.is long overdue. Is it the case a lot of the distressing images we
:02:54. > :02:59.have seen are about a general lack of care and dignity being given to
:02:59. > :03:06.older people, rather than them being denied clinical treatment?
:03:06. > :03:11.is true, particularly in the social care arena. In the home care
:03:11. > :03:18.inquiry, which showed people were being given 15 minute slots and
:03:18. > :03:24.they were being left in their dirty garments and all of that. What is
:03:24. > :03:28.also true, some bits of the system have policies, and those policies
:03:28. > :03:33.say in a blanket way, let's not look at the individual, let's say
:03:33. > :03:38.if you are over 50, you cannot have this liver treatment. So there is
:03:38. > :03:43.evidence those policies exist? Exactly. What we're saying is we
:03:43. > :03:47.have to look at the individual. you think it will open floodgates
:03:47. > :03:53.of legal action, people saying I was not offered that treatment and
:03:53. > :03:57.I am 65 and they should have been? I don't believe that for a second.
:03:57. > :04:01.Most people trust their doctors and this says, doctor's exercise their
:04:02. > :04:04.discretion but they do have to think of the individual in front of
:04:04. > :04:08.them, rather than the birth certificate.
:04:08. > :04:10.Now, gay marriage. The Church of England has today responded to the
:04:10. > :04:12.government's consultation on same- sex marriages saying that the
:04:12. > :04:16.proposals would dilute an institution, vastly important to a
:04:16. > :04:21.healthy society. The Government launched their consultation earlier
:04:21. > :04:23.this year looking to make same-sex marriage legal by 2015. The
:04:23. > :04:26.proposed legislation would allow same-sex couples to marry in a
:04:26. > :04:30.registry office or civil ceremony but the ban on marrying in a
:04:30. > :04:33.religious service would not change. The Home Office has insisted that
:04:33. > :04:35.no religious organisation would be forced to conduct weddings. However,
:04:35. > :04:39.today the Church of England has responded to the Government's
:04:39. > :04:42.consultation, saying that the proposed legislation is shallow.
:04:42. > :04:46.They worry that keeping the ban on marrying same-sex couples in
:04:46. > :04:49.religious services would not survive legal challenges. Gay
:04:49. > :04:52.Rights campaigners have accused the church of scaremongering. Support
:04:52. > :04:56.for same-sex marriage was seen as a cornerstone of David Cameron's new
:04:56. > :04:59.direction for the Conservative Party. However, the issue has
:04:59. > :05:05.proved divisive for backbench Tories with MP Peter Bone, calling
:05:05. > :05:07.the proposals "completely nuts". I'm joined now from Norwich by the
:05:07. > :05:16.Bishop of Norwich, the Right Reverend Graham James, and here in
:05:16. > :05:20.the studio with me is Labour MP Chris Bryant. Graham James, why do
:05:20. > :05:24.you think the consequence of same- sex marriage would have a big
:05:24. > :05:28.impact on society? Want are the things the Government consultation
:05:28. > :05:33.paper suggests is there is a distinction between civil marriage
:05:33. > :05:37.and religious marriage. This is a new distinction in English law.
:05:37. > :05:43.Marriage is a centuries-old institution which has always been
:05:43. > :05:49.defined as the Union as one man and one woman. That goes back before
:05:49. > :05:53.church and state. One of the things we fear is two different
:05:53. > :05:59.understandings of marriage creates a whole host of new minorities in
:05:59. > :06:04.society. So including one group, that is those who want same-sex
:06:04. > :06:09.marriage, will inevitably create a division in our understanding of
:06:10. > :06:15.marriage, which is meant to be a unifying factor within society.
:06:15. > :06:19.this is about equality, essentially. That is what the supporters of this
:06:20. > :06:25.proposal want to see. Surely that saw it is, and extension of equal
:06:25. > :06:31.rights, same-sex couples want to have that heterosexual couples
:06:31. > :06:36.have? We also have civil partnerships and same-sex marriage
:06:36. > :06:39.wouldn't give any greater rights to same-sex partners. One of the
:06:39. > :06:45.things that is clear in our documents is we support civil
:06:45. > :06:51.partnerships. We do want stable, permanent, faithful relationships
:06:51. > :06:56.between same-sex couples in society, as it strengthens society. The
:06:56. > :07:00.distinction in marriage is the sexual union of a man and a woman.
:07:00. > :07:05.The ceremony does not marry someone, it is the sexual union that creates
:07:05. > :07:09.the marriage which is why we have a annulment in civil law and
:07:09. > :07:15.determined by consummation. One of the things in the consultation is a
:07:15. > :07:20.failure to define how this would work across same-sex couples and
:07:20. > :07:26.heterosexual couples and that is left to case law to determined.
:07:26. > :07:30.There is a whole host of things that are ill-thought out. A Home
:07:30. > :07:35.Office has said no religious organisation will be forced to
:07:36. > :07:39.conduct those same-sex marriages? But there will be a redefinition of
:07:39. > :07:44.marriage for everyone. At the moment, within the Church of
:07:44. > :07:48.England people have a right to be married in their parish church, and
:07:48. > :07:51.Church of England clergy are in effect, registrars. We are not
:07:52. > :07:57.confident that if there was a challenge when the legal definition
:07:57. > :08:02.of marriage is altered to the position that the Government's
:08:02. > :08:06.assurances could withstand. Chris Bryant, two understandings of
:08:06. > :08:12.marriage, basically there would be two definitions, it wouldn't be the
:08:13. > :08:18.sexual union of a man and woman? is depressing that the Church of
:08:18. > :08:25.England, the big issue to have a row with the Government about it is
:08:25. > :08:28.not about the NHS, it is about same-sex and the quality Coulstock
:08:28. > :08:33.but it is a shame the Church of England cannot get its history
:08:33. > :08:37.right. Civil marriage was introduced in the 17th century and
:08:37. > :08:45.the Church of England was restored at the Restoration and did not
:08:45. > :08:50.object to it. The Church of England did choose to oppose the law, but
:08:51. > :08:55.subsequently said it was right to change the law. When marriage was
:08:55. > :08:58.concede that the woman was a chattel of the husband at the
:08:58. > :09:05.Church maintain that. When we tried to change that, the Church of
:09:05. > :09:12.England opposed it. But they now accept that marriage has changed in
:09:12. > :09:16.every generation. What about them, the claim that civil partnerships,
:09:16. > :09:21.which the Church supports, are enough? The bizarre thing is, one
:09:21. > :09:27.bishop this morning was maintaining the bishops had supported civil
:09:27. > :09:37.partnerships. Completely untrue. 6- 1, they voted against it in the
:09:37. > :09:40.House of Lords. Secondly, we now have a situation where you can have
:09:40. > :09:46.a civil partnership in a church, if the Church chooses to allow that to
:09:46. > :09:50.happen, but you cannot have a marriage! It is ludicrous. Graham
:09:50. > :09:55.James, there wasn't the widespread support for civil partnerships in
:09:55. > :09:59.the first place, and marriage has evolved over the centuries?
:09:59. > :10:06.Undoubtedly, marriage and vaults over the centuries. It is feasible
:10:06. > :10:10.for marriage to a golf further. What we are saying is the present
:10:10. > :10:19.consultation raises a good many issues about the nature of marriage
:10:19. > :10:23.that we want answered. It simply isn't the case that there had been
:10:24. > :10:27.two different understandings of marriage. The Church's
:10:27. > :10:33.understanding a mistake's understanding has been the same.
:10:33. > :10:40.am sorry, that is factually and legally wrong. The understanding of
:10:40. > :10:47.civil marriage is different from the sacraments of marriage. I
:10:47. > :10:52.disagree with you as an Anglican, albeit a boycotting Anglican
:10:52. > :10:56.because of the Church's stance on these issues. I do hope you do
:10:56. > :11:02.change, just like the Church changed on slavery. The sacrament
:11:02. > :11:07.of marriage, should be free for you to keep as such. What they don't
:11:07. > :11:17.understand is why the Church does not support commitment, made in law
:11:17. > :11:22.and in a ceremony, which is the same difference same-sex allows.
:11:22. > :11:25.view is at the moment, civil partnerships allowed the stable,
:11:25. > :11:28.permanent and faithful relationships to be recognised in
:11:28. > :11:37.the law. A change in our understanding of marriage affects
:11:37. > :11:41.us all. For the state to change immediately, an age-old institution
:11:41. > :11:48.which has been the union of one man and one woman, without very careful
:11:48. > :11:53.thought about the consequences, then we need to think much further.
:11:53. > :12:01.His Graham James out of touch and representing and out of touch, old
:12:01. > :12:07.fashioned view? Or is this I threat to the church? I would never say
:12:07. > :12:10.Graham James is out of touch. But I do think the arguments being made
:12:10. > :12:16.marks something different. The submission this morning helps. What
:12:16. > :12:20.the Church is worried about is not so much homosexuality, it is the
:12:20. > :12:24.status of the Church. The Government is offering choice for
:12:24. > :12:30.the first time. The only choice that won't be available to anybody
:12:30. > :12:33.is to force a vicar, Coychurch to conduct a same-sex union. Except
:12:34. > :12:38.they are worried about legal challenges? I can say with
:12:38. > :12:45.authority, we the Commission do not believe the European Court would
:12:45. > :12:51.ever take that view, all case law says the opposite. And this would
:12:51. > :12:55.never support a challenge. But the issue, which is Graham James
:12:55. > :12:59.raising, should be discussed. That is the question of the change in
:12:59. > :13:04.the status of the Church. 500 years ago, the state said to the church,
:13:04. > :13:13.you are in charge of deciding what marriage is. Now parliaments are
:13:13. > :13:16.saying, we decide what marriage is. That is a reasonable thing. I don't
:13:16. > :13:23.think it has to lead to disestablishment. I do think the
:13:23. > :13:27.Church getting into a pickle about this removes, if you like, the
:13:27. > :13:30.Church's role as being a spiritual guide. Fighting to be the agent of
:13:30. > :13:35.the state, doesn't seem to be the right place for the Church of
:13:35. > :13:42.England. The Church of England was created by Parliament, Cromwell
:13:42. > :13:46.took it through the House of Lords and Parliament. We disagree on how
:13:46. > :13:52.and when the Church of England was created. At the Church of England
:13:52. > :13:55.would be cutting off its nose to spite its face ellipsis with this
:13:55. > :13:59.argument by saying it is the biggest change in 500 years. My
:13:59. > :14:04.hope they would do exactly what they did after they voted to keep
:14:04. > :14:09.slavery in place, 30 years later they apologised. Politically, will
:14:09. > :14:15.it be voted on? They have made a commitment, but with the opposition
:14:15. > :14:21.coming through? I am sure a bill will be presented. Whether it is a
:14:21. > :14:25.private member's bill from somebody, which will probably be heavily
:14:25. > :14:29.supported in the House of Commons, and similarly in the House of Lords.
:14:29. > :14:35.But we will have to deal with the bishops of both. What a warning,
:14:35. > :14:38.Graham James. We will end on that. Plans to make it tougher for
:14:38. > :14:41.relatives of those living in the UK to migrate here were announced in
:14:41. > :14:44.the Commons yesterday. The Home Secretary, Theresa May said that in
:14:44. > :14:47.2010, 18% of all non EU immigration was through the family route and
:14:47. > :14:51.she claimed that in the past sham marriages were widespread. However
:14:51. > :14:54.the debate wasn't as well attended as it might have been and some
:14:54. > :15:04.suggested a certain football game may have had something to do with
:15:04. > :15:05.
:15:05. > :15:10.In 2010, family immigration accounted for approximately 18% of
:15:10. > :15:13.all non EU immigration to the UK, around 54,000 people out of 300,000.
:15:13. > :15:17.But like the rest of the immigration system it has not been
:15:17. > :15:19.regulated effectively for many years. Sham marriages have been
:15:19. > :15:23.widespread, people have been allowed to settle in Britain
:15:24. > :15:27.without being able to speak English and they have not been rules in
:15:27. > :15:32.place to stop migrants becoming a burden on the taxpayer. We are
:15:32. > :15:36.changing all of that. The UK needs a system for family migration
:15:36. > :15:40.underpinned by three simple principles. One, that those who
:15:40. > :15:44.come here should come on the basis of a genuine relationship. Two,
:15:44. > :15:47.that migrants should be able to pay their way and three, that they are
:15:47. > :15:51.able to integrate into bridges society. We agree that stronger
:15:51. > :15:54.safeguards are needed for the taxpayer of family migration. If
:15:54. > :15:58.people want to make this country their home, they should contribute
:15:58. > :16:04.and not be a burden on public funds, but it isn't clear that the vexed
:16:04. > :16:08.weighed to protect the taxpayer is to focus solely on sponsors salary.
:16:08. > :16:11.In the current economic climate, someone on 40,000 today could lose
:16:11. > :16:14.their job next month and then there's no way to protect the
:16:14. > :16:19.taxpayer. It also doesn't take account of the foreign partner's
:16:19. > :16:22.income and may have a differential impact on women. Can she explain
:16:22. > :16:26.why the Government will do a consulting on a bond which could
:16:26. > :16:33.have been used to protect the taxpayer if someone did need public
:16:33. > :16:39.funds later on? The effect of this change will be directed against the
:16:39. > :16:42.British Asian community, not illegal immigrants, settled
:16:42. > :16:47.Britain's who are here, pay their taxes and contribute to this
:16:48. > :16:52.country. I really don't believe that the British Home Secretary
:16:53. > :17:00.should be determining who a spouse of a British citizen should be
:17:00. > :17:03.based on an arbitrary limit and -- an arbitrary financial limit.
:17:03. > :17:07.congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward one of the most
:17:07. > :17:10.important announcements of this session. So important I'm here to
:17:10. > :17:15.ask a question rather than watching England against France! There's a
:17:15. > :17:19.lack of public confidence in our immigration system. I'm doing my
:17:19. > :17:23.bit! Is it not the case that the best way to tackle this lack of
:17:23. > :17:28.confidence is to bring these sorts of measures forward that strengthen
:17:28. > :17:30.public confidence by strong and robust Innovation? Can I thank my
:17:30. > :17:37.honourable friend for his commitment to this issue such that
:17:37. > :17:41.he is in the chamber. I notice there have been one or two levers
:17:41. > :17:47.since the statements started which may have something to do with what
:17:47. > :17:49.is happening in Ukraine! reference to the Football!
:17:49. > :17:52.Damian Green, the Minister responsible for immigration, joins
:17:52. > :17:57.us now and Chris Bryant, who's a shadow Home Office minister, is
:17:57. > :18:01.still with us. Is this purely about numbers, knocking down the number
:18:01. > :18:06.of people coming here from non EU countries so that you can hit the
:18:06. > :18:10.target you set? It does help us to hit the target, but it is mostly
:18:10. > :18:15.about two things. Fairness and cohesion. The fairness in that we
:18:15. > :18:19.don't think people think it is fair that you can come here and in the
:18:19. > :18:23.full expectation from day one that you can live off benefits. Is there
:18:23. > :18:27.evidence to show what numbers of people who are from non-EU
:18:27. > :18:31.countries marrying British Simpsons -- citizens are sponge of the
:18:31. > :18:36.state? For migration Advisory Committee on whose independent
:18:36. > :18:41.report we based the figure of 18,600 as a minimum income level
:18:41. > :18:49.say that is the level at which you stop being dependent on benefits.
:18:49. > :18:55.About 45% of those applying for marriage are coming in at below
:18:55. > :18:58.that level. That doesn't answer the question. How many people... The
:18:58. > :19:03.Government statistics I've seen say foreign-born people are less than
:19:03. > :19:09.half as likely to claim benefits as bone born here. Those are people
:19:09. > :19:17.coming here to work. You would expect them... How many? Nearly
:19:18. > :19:22.half of those who come, under the marriage route, are eligible and up
:19:22. > :19:26.at an income level where they can get income related benefits.
:19:26. > :19:31.eligible. How many of them do claim? The vast majority. You don't
:19:31. > :19:38.know. We do, we have the assessment coming up tomorrow. The amount
:19:38. > :19:40.saved to the taxpayer is �700 million. The critics will say those
:19:41. > :19:45.proposals would exclude something like two-thirds of British people
:19:45. > :19:53.from living in the UK as a couple if they marry and non EU national
:19:53. > :19:57.by setting it at that 18,700. People -- not enough people
:19:57. > :20:01.turnover that. You will be persecuting the poor.
:20:01. > :20:05.persecuting anyone. They will have to split up or they will have to
:20:05. > :20:08.move abroad. This is a new definition of persecution. You
:20:08. > :20:14.don't have the absolute right to come from anywhere in the world and
:20:14. > :20:23.on day one of arriving in Britain, live off benefits. Why are you
:20:23. > :20:27.pitching it at 18,700? Because that is the point at which people are
:20:27. > :20:32.not going to be living off income related benefits. It is an
:20:32. > :20:36.absolutely clear point. We were offered by the migration of
:20:36. > :20:41.advisory figure a higher figure. They suggested 25,500, which would
:20:41. > :20:44.be the point at which people become net economic beneficiaries. We took
:20:44. > :20:48.the low level because we thought this was fair. This is a fair
:20:48. > :20:53.policies. There's one point I do agree with. Somebody coming to this
:20:53. > :20:58.country should not expect to live off the British taxpayer. Somebody
:20:58. > :21:02.sponsoring, whether a partner or a dependant of any kind, coming into
:21:02. > :21:08.this country should be able to prove that person isn't going to be
:21:08. > :21:11.a burden on the taxpayer. You would support that level? The question I
:21:11. > :21:15.have is about the many anomalies I think this will set up an by
:21:15. > :21:19.relying only on the salary of the sponsor, whether you introduced
:21:19. > :21:23.some injustices and don't sort out the problem. In the present
:21:23. > :21:27.economic circumstances, you can be on �40,000 today and earning
:21:27. > :21:31.nothing in two weeks' time because you could be made redundant. How
:21:31. > :21:36.have you protected the taxpayer from the partner of that person?
:21:36. > :21:41.Let's say you what a British army veteran, you are disabled, you want
:21:41. > :21:46.to marry an American who is earning $100,000 a year, is going to come
:21:46. > :21:49.to the UK and the moment they arrive, they will start earning
:21:49. > :21:55.�80,000 a year but that salary is not allowed to be included. Isn't
:21:55. > :21:59.it? Christian do his homework. This doesn't apply to the military. They
:21:59. > :22:06.are covered under a different part of the immigration laws. This is
:22:06. > :22:10.changing the immigration laws... The army... The broad thrust of
:22:11. > :22:13.this, you'd do agree with. I agree with the principle, but I wonder
:22:13. > :22:17.whether there isn't a different -- different way of doing it rather
:22:17. > :22:21.than relying on salary. Somebody commits to laying down a certain
:22:21. > :22:26.amount of money, which I think some people, in particular in poorer
:22:26. > :22:30.parts of the country, might be able to raise, which then does protect
:22:30. > :22:38.the taxpayer better. You would not be able to redeem it until you had
:22:38. > :22:43.had three or five years without claiming benefits. The problem, I
:22:43. > :22:47.looked at the bond when I was doing Chris's job, the problem is that it
:22:47. > :22:55.is an expensive visa only available to the very rich and slightly dodgy
:22:55. > :22:59.who want to bring relatives in. Where would you set the Bond level?
:22:59. > :23:04.As you didn't declare which rate you would pitch it at in opposition,
:23:04. > :23:07.I will not do that now. Is this quite a brave move by the
:23:07. > :23:12.Government to come out and set a bar to achieve some of the things
:23:12. > :23:17.they want to do to stop people coming here, on day one and
:23:17. > :23:22.claiming benefits? Everybody agrees that the cheating issue is one we
:23:22. > :23:28.have to tackle. I don't think this will make a blind bit of difference.
:23:28. > :23:33.In terms of the numbers of people coming over? By the way, 18,600,
:23:33. > :23:37.the cost of the average wedding is not far short of that these days. I
:23:37. > :23:42.would be very surprised... I can see the political arguments about
:23:42. > :23:52.this and the Government wants to send a signal. But I would be very,
:23:52. > :23:56.very surprised. If it doesn't achieve what you want, which is to
:23:56. > :24:06.bring down those numbers and help economically... It will not do
:24:06. > :24:09.anything for the economics. best estimates, the Immigration
:24:10. > :24:15.Advisory Committee thinks the number of visas issues will be
:24:15. > :24:21.13,000 fewer. It is not huge numbers. The family route is a
:24:21. > :24:26.relatively small part of the Overall numbers. The vast majority
:24:26. > :24:33.are students. Sham marriages is quite a big issue. Sham marriages
:24:33. > :24:39.is a huge issue, as is forced marriages. In percentage terms,
:24:39. > :24:45.about two-thirds of immigrants come under student visas, that is why we
:24:45. > :24:50.took action... But it will harm settled Asian families here.
:24:50. > :24:54.think it will cause some anxiety. The problem is... I understand what
:24:54. > :24:58.you want to do and nobody is going to accuse the Government of bad
:24:58. > :25:03.faith, but the question is, will it make a huge difference? We will see
:25:03. > :25:07.in a couple of years. Does it send the right sort of message? The
:25:07. > :25:13.Overall message is a problem one. Employers talk about this all the
:25:13. > :25:17.time. Britain is beginning to feel like it is shut for business. We
:25:17. > :25:22.need clever people. Some of these will be husbands and wives. That is
:25:22. > :25:28.why there's a problem about the British woman in particular,
:25:28. > :25:32.because of the pay gap differential, who marries... It is only her
:25:32. > :25:35.salary that is able to be considered. She marries somebody
:25:35. > :25:41.who is earning well abroad and is intending to come to this country
:25:41. > :25:45.and has a guaranteed job in this country on way more than the 18,500
:25:45. > :25:51.the Government is considering, and that is not able to be considered.
:25:51. > :25:56.That person can come in on a work visa. It has got nothing to do with
:25:56. > :26:00.employment. If people can come here to do a graduate level job...
:26:00. > :26:03.not heard that way abroad, you know that, that is the problem. Thank
:26:03. > :26:06.you. Now, it was a certain former prime
:26:06. > :26:09.minister who spoke nostalgically about warm beer, old maids cycling
:26:09. > :26:12.to Holy Communion and long shadows on cricket grounds. Well, I can't
:26:12. > :26:16.speak for the maids or the beer, but cricket isn't all about village
:26:16. > :26:18.greens or, come to that, summer weather. It can be played anywhere,
:26:18. > :26:21.in any weather, and there's apparently a message for Cameron's
:26:21. > :26:25."Big Society". It's being played right here, under a soggy Big Ben,
:26:25. > :26:33.today. To explain all, we have Home Office minister Crispin Blunt and
:26:33. > :26:38.none other than Sir Ian Botham. Ian Botham, what is it you're doing?
:26:38. > :26:42.How does it work? It is very simple. There are so many of these multi-
:26:43. > :26:47.games areas around the country that get used we believe at an average
:26:47. > :26:52.of one hour per day. They are dormant for long periods of time.
:26:52. > :26:56.We are trying to bring in a very raw basic level form of the game of
:26:56. > :27:02.cricket, which needs six people to play it in one of these can find
:27:02. > :27:07.areas, or a gymnasium, or village hall. It can be played anywhere.
:27:07. > :27:12.You play it in this area, you rotate all the time. Everyone Batts,
:27:12. > :27:16.everyone bulls and everyone, more importantly, umpires the game as
:27:16. > :27:20.well as fielding. It is total involvement and it is done and
:27:20. > :27:24.dusted in an hour. We're trying to get away from a lot of kids
:27:24. > :27:28.impressions of cricket, which is that you stand at fine leg, you are
:27:28. > :27:36.there for most of the day, you don't get a bowl or bat... Isn't
:27:36. > :27:42.that true?! That is the advantage of being an all-rounder! We wanted
:27:42. > :27:46.to show them that you can have this great game. You don't need pads or
:27:46. > :27:51.all of the equipment. You need a bat and a synthetic ball. It is
:27:51. > :27:54.cheap and easy to do. Be it is making it more accessible. As well
:27:54. > :27:59.as what you've said about standing there for hours waiting, you need
:27:59. > :28:01.quite a big space to do it and this will work against that. Yes. We are
:28:01. > :28:05.trying to give opportunities to people who would not have an
:28:05. > :28:08.opportunity. We have had guys who have never picked up a cricket bat
:28:08. > :28:17.and within 15 minutes they know the rules and a loving the game.
:28:17. > :28:21.that because it is seen as more of a posh sport? Possibly. But also
:28:21. > :28:25.the fact that you do need a bigger area, you need 21 other people to
:28:25. > :28:30.play and you need all of the equipment, then a couple of umpires.
:28:30. > :28:36.It takes some organisation. This doesn't. What's not to like about
:28:36. > :28:40.this? Not very much not to like! What is quite good for the Prison
:28:40. > :28:44.Service is it fits into the kind of spaces that are available in prison.
:28:44. > :28:49.Ian alighted on what I think is the real benefit, which is the umpire's
:28:49. > :28:52.role. All of the players rotate around and it is the social effect
:28:52. > :28:55.of people learning how to take responsibility for their decisions
:28:56. > :29:00.and then taking decisions themselves and receiving decisions
:29:00. > :29:04.and learning to accept them. There's a rather exciting social
:29:04. > :29:11.ethic about this, all of which sits with the ethics around cricket as
:29:11. > :29:15.well. It has a big potential benefit for offenders as well as
:29:15. > :29:25.society as a whole. You think it will go as far as helping to
:29:25. > :29:26.
:29:26. > :29:30.rehabilitate offenders are? Not on its own. If you have an activity in
:29:30. > :29:33.custody, where we do insist that people make time for physical
:29:33. > :29:38.activity in custody, if you have an activity that they want to do and
:29:38. > :29:41.get engaged with, and has a social benefit in terms of relationships
:29:42. > :29:46.they make and have to make through the game, so much the better.
:29:46. > :29:50.you agree with that, Ian Botham? Can't have positive effects in the
:29:50. > :29:54.way you have described it, in terms of sharing roles and then somebody
:29:54. > :29:58.adjudicating, even in a prison environment? Year. It is unique as
:29:58. > :30:04.well. You are playing for yourself, but you are playing with five other
:30:04. > :30:07.people. You have to police it as well as play. There's no point in
:30:07. > :30:12.thinking I don't like that guy over there, so why would give him out.
:30:12. > :30:17.By the time the other five have dealt with you, you will be in a
:30:17. > :30:22.minor situation. It gives you a bit of that. It is disciplined, but it
:30:22. > :30:25.is having fun with discipline. The other thing, I would much rather
:30:25. > :30:30.get the kids off the streets and the Street corners and get them
:30:30. > :30:34.into this. It is instant. You play for yourself, you put your scoring
:30:34. > :30:38.on your iPhone or BlackBerry and it goes to the national grid and then
:30:38. > :30:43.it will come back and say you are now number two in Westminster,
:30:43. > :30:49.number 36 in Middlesex another 200 in the UK. That is how we see it
:30:49. > :30:54.going. It will build up and then you'll have regional finals. It
:30:54. > :30:58.will expand and once they get the bug, the kids will go for it.
:30:58. > :31:03.think it will take off in that way? Not being a cricket expert myself,
:31:03. > :31:07.it is interesting seeing you defining it in that terms. I think
:31:07. > :31:11.it will. I believe it will end up being international, not just in
:31:11. > :31:16.this country. There's talk about it in Australia already, there's a lot
:31:16. > :31:26.of interest over there. I think it is magnificent, everybody wants to
:31:26. > :31:28.
:31:28. > :31:34.Presumably sport is played in prison, why would this make a
:31:34. > :31:38.particular difference? It can adapt to the kind of spaces available for
:31:38. > :31:43.physical activity in prison. Then you have the rules and
:31:43. > :31:47.responsibility so round it. That's why I think it will work in custody.
:31:47. > :31:51.Every prison is different, and every prison governor or have to
:31:51. > :31:54.make a decision on what resources they have available to spend and
:31:54. > :32:00.whether it stacks up against the other things he wants the prisoners
:32:00. > :32:05.to do. But what is more interesting is the wider benefit, getting
:32:05. > :32:11.cricket in two parts of the community. As a cricket fan, I
:32:11. > :32:16.appreciate that possibility. Before you go off, Ian Botham, slightly
:32:16. > :32:21.related, will England beat South Africa in the test? Yes. That was
:32:21. > :32:26.nice and short. Crispin Blunt, this is unrelated but it is the current
:32:26. > :32:31.story, your reaction to the same- sex marriages and the Church's
:32:31. > :32:38.response? The coverage I have seen on the position of the Church of
:32:38. > :32:42.England is they seem very split on this issue. I was speaking this
:32:42. > :32:47.morning on this. The Government have come forward with proposals
:32:47. > :32:51.designed to protect the position of all the churches, they will be
:32:51. > :32:56.prescribed from offering same-sex marriage. I think that position may
:32:56. > :33:01.have some legal difficulties of its own. I don't think anybody would
:33:01. > :33:08.tolerate a position where religions are being forced to conduct same-
:33:08. > :33:12.sex marriages, it has to be a matter for them. The Government is
:33:12. > :33:18.proposing the state recognised the quality of marriage, and inequality
:33:18. > :33:23.is not acceptable. One thing I want to say about the England and South
:33:23. > :33:26.Africa series - something to think about - you have the two best
:33:27. > :33:34.bowlers, Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson and they will be competing
:33:34. > :33:37.against each other. That will be fascinating in itself.
:33:37. > :33:40.Our guest of the day Sir Trevor Philips, is standing down from his
:33:40. > :33:44.job as chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission this year.
:33:44. > :33:47.The Government are taking the opportunity to "refocus" the role.
:33:47. > :33:56.But that's not the only thing that they're changing when it comes to
:33:56. > :33:59.equalities legislation. Here's Adam. The nine so-called protected
:33:59. > :34:05.characteristics, discrimination based on any of them is illegal
:34:05. > :34:09.under the qualities act of 2010. But the Government say they will
:34:09. > :34:16.repeal some of that legislation, such as employment tribunals losing
:34:16. > :34:20.the power in ordering businesses to make changes to their whole
:34:21. > :34:25.organisation over one case. Businesses will no longer be
:34:25. > :34:28.responsible if an employee is harassed by a third party.
:34:29. > :34:34.Employees will lose the right to request information from their
:34:34. > :34:39.employers if they think they have been discriminated against. That is
:34:39. > :34:44.a step and the right direction for entrepreneur, James Caan. He says
:34:44. > :34:48.most cases of false claims brought by employees affected by the
:34:48. > :34:53.recession. Ilott then go because the business is declining and you
:34:53. > :34:57.have to reduce costs. When you look to let the individual go because
:34:57. > :35:02.she wants the company to survive, the employee will go to a lawyer
:35:02. > :35:07.and come up with some reason saying, you're letting me go because it is
:35:07. > :35:12.not because the business is not there, it is because of my colour,
:35:12. > :35:18.Mike Reid, my race and religion. one of his companies, the reason is
:35:18. > :35:21.say they have a diverse workforce is nothing to do with equality laws.
:35:21. > :35:25.With the freedom of Labour, increased individuals coming in
:35:25. > :35:29.from different cultures it adds benefit to the economy. I think it
:35:29. > :35:34.is something that has been wonderful as a company. We have
:35:34. > :35:38.done it without the legislation. The public sector will be affected,
:35:38. > :35:43.the Government is considering whether to scrap the law that says
:35:43. > :35:48.all public bodies, such as schools and hospitals have a general duty
:35:48. > :35:54.to foster a quality, which would be a big change. All of this appals
:35:54. > :35:59.Labour. I think it is death by a 1000 cuts of a quality protection
:35:59. > :36:05.in this country. Whether it is repealing some of the existing
:36:06. > :36:09.legislation, or not going ahead with things we expected, light
:36:09. > :36:12.legislating to outlaw age discrimination, watering down
:36:12. > :36:16.provisions and making it more difficult for employees and
:36:16. > :36:22.consumers to exercise their right and get support. The Commission is
:36:22. > :36:27.reviewing the role and funding of the Equality and Human Rights
:36:27. > :36:37.Commission, the watchdog that oversees all this.
:36:37. > :36:38.
:36:38. > :36:47.And we're joined now by the Conservative MP, Nadine Zahawi. I
:36:47. > :36:52.think I elevated to to Sir Trevor Phillips. I am just a common man.
:36:52. > :36:57.This is nothing to do with equalities laws, what do you say
:36:57. > :37:02.about that? I wish that was true. It never occurs to that individual
:37:02. > :37:07.who said that. The situation we are in now, is different to 20 years
:37:07. > :37:12.ago, when discrimination of various kinds, not just race, but gender
:37:12. > :37:16.and disability will comment. The law isn't the be all and end all,
:37:16. > :37:20.but it changes the atmosphere and the climate. Without the law we
:37:20. > :37:23.would still be seeing the kind of discrimination we saw in the 80s.
:37:23. > :37:27.That would mean people who currently contribute to companies
:37:27. > :37:31.like that one would feel shut out of the labour market, and probably
:37:31. > :37:38.would be. They were major changes in terms of the way people were
:37:38. > :37:42.employed, and the workforce as it looks now. Do you think, although
:37:42. > :37:47.this is a well-motivated, it is a burden on business? It is promoted
:37:47. > :37:52.by a lot of noisy people who don't employed any body, and don't work
:37:52. > :37:58.with employers. As a matter of fact, this proposition, it is all very
:37:58. > :38:04.difficult and so on, over six years since the Equality and Human Rights
:38:04. > :38:10.Commission has been in business, Dino amid times we have prosecuted?
:38:10. > :38:16.Tell us. Three times. And we have settled it before going to court.
:38:16. > :38:21.So the idea of employees being forced into court all the time is
:38:21. > :38:27.nonsense. The Government should remove the anxiety small employers
:38:27. > :38:34.have about an. People from ethnic minorities and disabled people. And
:38:34. > :38:38.particularly women of child-bearing age. Your average hairdresser
:38:38. > :38:42.thinks they will run into trouble. But there is no possibility if they
:38:42. > :38:48.can do themselves sensibly. It would be great if we could help
:38:48. > :38:53.people do with it. Do you accept that? It is the rhetoric that has
:38:53. > :38:56.frightened employers into thinking it's legislation and the qualities
:38:56. > :39:02.legislation that will make it difficult for them to hire and fire
:39:02. > :39:07.people, for example? I think he has a good point, there is a lot of
:39:07. > :39:13.misconception around employing women. As soon as they fall
:39:13. > :39:18.pregnant there is an enormous additional cost to small businesses.
:39:18. > :39:25.There has been a piece in the Times, going over the numbers. When you
:39:25. > :39:33.talk to small businesses, there is this urban myth these things cost
:39:33. > :39:38.an enormous amount of money. On the other hand, when you do conducts
:39:38. > :39:42.surveys, and round tribunals, which is a different area, when they feel
:39:42. > :39:48.the cost of tribunals, the time it takes that maybe there is better
:39:48. > :39:54.ways of doing it. Trevor says not many people are dealt with in that
:39:54. > :39:59.way? That is the concern, rather than cases coming to? It has
:39:59. > :40:03.nothing to do with the qualities legislation, it is sorting out the
:40:03. > :40:07.machinery of the employment tribunal system. Precisely, and the
:40:07. > :40:11.settlement agreement Vince Cable was talking about is positive. An
:40:11. > :40:17.employer can offer a settlement to an employee, if they do not accept
:40:17. > :40:20.a one to go to the tribunal, the tribunal won't take that settlement
:40:20. > :40:25.into account. It is better and faster than the compromise
:40:25. > :40:29.agreement we have now, which is suited to larger employers. Do you
:40:29. > :40:34.accept the legislation is not a burden on business, not a
:40:34. > :40:41.significant burden? Some of it is, because some of the conversation we
:40:41. > :40:46.have had back, for example, the third party discrimination is the
:40:46. > :40:51.responsibility of the employer. So some of it is. The work Trevor has
:40:51. > :40:55.done is incredibly valuable, but to refocus the organisation and to
:40:55. > :41:00.tighten its budget is the right thing to do. This requirement on
:41:00. > :41:06.public bodies to have an equality duty, to make sure anything they do
:41:06. > :41:09.has some equality duty in it, was described by death by 1000 cuts
:41:09. > :41:16.because the Government is repealing it. Is it necessary to have it
:41:16. > :41:20.there? It is, I wish the Government would use it more effectively.
:41:20. > :41:25.Their case for deficit reduction would be aided if they used it more
:41:25. > :41:29.effectively. We have done an assessment of the 2010 spending
:41:29. > :41:34.review and published a few weeks ago. One of the things we
:41:34. > :41:41.discovered, the Government tried very hard and they did do very well.
:41:41. > :41:45.But one of the things that was interesting, people premium, 2.5
:41:45. > :41:49.billion a year, it did not do a gender impact assessment. If they
:41:49. > :41:55.had, what would have been revealed is the real problem is not all poor
:41:55. > :42:03.children. It is mainly boys of a particular ethnic group. They could
:42:03. > :42:07.have cut the bill of the pupil premium by 50% had they done a
:42:07. > :42:11.proper assessment. Also, it is so the Government makes better
:42:11. > :42:15.decisions. What is happening now is the Government is, in a way,
:42:16. > :42:20.because it wants to receive -- wave a flag on how it is helping
:42:21. > :42:26.businesses, it is taking away the tool to make better decisions and
:42:26. > :42:29.spend less of the public's hard- earned money. Do you think the
:42:29. > :42:34.Government has an agenda that it basically wants to abolish the
:42:35. > :42:41.Commission? Not true. The Government wants to focus the
:42:41. > :42:45.Commission on the strategic aims, tighten the board. Bring on board
:42:45. > :42:49.members that have a business background, so there is a closer
:42:49. > :42:56.understanding and focus it on the things it does really well. Take it
:42:56. > :43:02.away from conciliation services, which is a necessary.
:43:02. > :43:09.As the violence in Syria continues, the UN reports say Syrian troops
:43:09. > :43:14.have tortured children and use them as human shields on tanks. The UN
:43:14. > :43:19.Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon is concerned that the violence has
:43:19. > :43:23.intensified across Syria over the past couple of days. William Hague
:43:23. > :43:27.is visiting Pakistan, but made the statements and said military
:43:27. > :43:32.intervention was not being considered and there was hope for
:43:32. > :43:37.some kind of peaceful transition. Each day reports emerge of savage
:43:37. > :43:41.crimes. The Syrian military are bombarding towns with heavy
:43:41. > :43:47.weaponry, and then releasing militia groups to murder civilians
:43:47. > :43:53.in their homes. It is reminiscent of the Balkans in the 1990s. Two
:43:53. > :44:01.weeks ago in Houla, 108 civilians died in this manner including
:44:01. > :44:05.children. A similar atrocity was committed last week in Qubair. Un
:44:05. > :44:13.monitors attempting to report on these events have been shot at and
:44:13. > :44:18.obstructed. These grotesque crimes have eliminated to the world, the
:44:18. > :44:23.nature of Syria and the regime. It is to break the spirit of
:44:23. > :44:28.opposition in Syria and tried to reassert control. This is as futile
:44:28. > :44:32.as it is morally reprehensible. By branding their opponents terrace
:44:32. > :44:38.and using tanks, the regime is driving Syrians to take up arms to
:44:38. > :44:44.defend their homes and by singling out particular communities it is
:44:44. > :44:47.inflaming sectarian tension. We are joined by Lord Ashdown. William
:44:48. > :44:54.Hague has said there are similarities with the Balkans,
:44:54. > :45:00.Bosnia, military militia killing civilians. Do you agree with that?
:45:00. > :45:08.Yes, up to a point. I know there. He is trying to make, it is a valid
:45:08. > :45:12.point, there are horrors going on there. But I suspect dark deeds are
:45:12. > :45:18.going on which both sides. In Bosnia we could have acted, but we
:45:18. > :45:23.chose not to, foolishly. In Syria, I think we cannot act, even though
:45:23. > :45:27.we would like to. The reason is, we cannot get unanimity in the
:45:27. > :45:34.Security Council, and that is essential. We cannot act without
:45:34. > :45:38.that. But on a humanitarian basis? No, the truth is the days when the
:45:38. > :45:43.West was powerful enough to treat the Security Council with cavalier
:45:43. > :45:53.regard are over. I think there will be many who will be pleased about
:45:53. > :46:00.
:46:00. > :46:04.In Libya, we played very canny diplomacy. We made sure those who
:46:04. > :46:08.led the charge were the regional voices, especially the Arabs.
:46:08. > :46:13.Secondly, we concentrated on humanitarian intervention, to save
:46:13. > :46:16.those suffering rather than regime change. This time it seems to me we
:46:16. > :46:20.have gone back to the old practice of making it easiest for the
:46:20. > :46:27.Russians to cast their veto by making this led by the West and
:46:27. > :46:33.making it about regime change. The result is that we've got ourselves
:46:33. > :46:38.into an impasse we did not need to get into. But we are where we are
:46:38. > :46:41.now and we have to decide what we do next. That is how we got here.
:46:41. > :46:45.Do you think that if the Government and other governments had played it
:46:45. > :46:53.differently, the Russians would be on board in some way to put
:46:53. > :46:57.pressure on? That is a legitimate question. I think clever modern
:46:58. > :47:04.diplomacy is about making it as difficult as possible for the
:47:04. > :47:09.Russians to disagree. And the Chinese. If we had had this led by
:47:09. > :47:12.Arab forces, especially Turkey, and if we had had it about humanitarian
:47:12. > :47:15.intervention rather than removal of the one from the Russians had got,
:47:15. > :47:23.we would have made it more difficult for them to cut their
:47:23. > :47:32.veto. It would have been... Do you believe in the Kofi Annan plan?
:47:32. > :47:35.think it is over now. The really dangerous situation we have got
:47:36. > :47:40.ourselves into, we need to learn the lessons of Libya. We are living
:47:40. > :47:43.in a different age. We need to be more canny about our diplomacy. It
:47:43. > :47:48.was led by the Americans, not by William Hague, but it was still
:47:48. > :47:57.wrong. They did talk about regime change with Colonel Gaddafi. No one
:47:57. > :48:00.ever said he would stay end any post. If I may gently suggest to
:48:00. > :48:04.you that you are wrong. We deliberately did not say it was
:48:04. > :48:09.about regime change. The Security Council resolution did not go that
:48:09. > :48:12.far. We were careful to say it is about humanitarian intervention.
:48:12. > :48:17.Everybody knew that at the end of that process Gaddafi had to go, but
:48:17. > :48:20.we started with a humanitarian intervention. What about this
:48:20. > :48:23.Russian suggestion for an international conference? Is that
:48:23. > :48:28.them just playing with the international community or do you
:48:28. > :48:33.think there's a genuine mood in Russia because of the terrible
:48:33. > :48:36.images from Homs and Houla? Although they will not come out
:48:36. > :48:40.blatantly against their ally, they do want something to be done and of
:48:40. > :48:44.course also said Iran should be part of that. I think it is playing
:48:44. > :48:48.for time. When you're in these situations, you have to go every
:48:48. > :48:53.last mile for peace. We have to take them at base value. It would
:48:53. > :49:00.be foolish to reject that option, but I guess the Russians are trying
:49:00. > :49:04.to play for time. Where we are now, the impacts can only be broken when
:49:04. > :49:09.the Russians change their position. The danger of this impasse is not
:49:09. > :49:12.just that the killing goes on in Syria, it is that this develops and
:49:12. > :49:18.to work wider war which engulfs the whole of the Middle East and that
:49:19. > :49:23.is the danger. What would tip that over the edge? We've seen these
:49:23. > :49:29.dreadful massacres. Lebanon. When it starts to spread into Lebanon...
:49:29. > :49:34.You now have Saudi Arabia arming the rebels. Many of these are now
:49:34. > :49:40.Sunni, Shea conflicts within Syria. If that tips over into Lebanon, a
:49:40. > :49:47.widening conflict is a real possibility. Matt Seaton called the
:49:47. > :49:52.first and second world wars the European civil wars. -- mousy tone.
:49:52. > :49:56.In order for that not to happen, his William Hague right, if it is
:49:56. > :50:00.how you interpret it, to suggest that if the best efforts might fail,
:50:00. > :50:04.that they will have to consider other options? Do you see that as
:50:04. > :50:09.in suggesting that military intervention may at some point be
:50:09. > :50:13.necessary? In diplomacy you never say what you are not going to do.
:50:13. > :50:18.We all know that absent a shift in the Russian position, and in the
:50:18. > :50:21.Chinese position, a military intervention by the West would be
:50:21. > :50:25.unfeasible in the present circumstances. If we are clever, we
:50:25. > :50:30.might try to resuscitate the Arab voice, bring Turkey into this. If
:50:31. > :50:34.we could put Turkey up front, there would be different. But you are
:50:35. > :50:39.straight back into Sunni and Shia factions. From the impasse we are
:50:39. > :50:41.now in, there are very few ways out of this absent the Russians
:50:41. > :50:48.realising they are not doing themselves any good by supporting
:50:48. > :50:51.Assad. Pretty gloomy and bleak. certainly is. That is international
:50:51. > :50:56.politics for you. Another day, another former prime minister in
:50:56. > :50:59.the dock. It must be the Leveson Inquiry. This morning it was the
:50:59. > :51:02.turn of John Major who acknowledged he had been given a rough ride by
:51:02. > :51:06.the press when he was in power. He was asked about a lunch he had
:51:06. > :51:14.before Rupert Murdoch -- with Rupert Murdoch just before the 1994
:51:14. > :51:18.election. It became apparent in discussions that Mr Murdoch said
:51:18. > :51:24.that he really didn't like a European policies. This was no
:51:24. > :51:29.surprise to me. He didn't like our European policies and he wished me
:51:29. > :51:33.to change our European policies. If we couldn't change our European
:51:33. > :51:38.policies, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative
:51:38. > :51:43.government. As I recall, he used the word we when referring to his
:51:43. > :51:48.newspapers. He did not make the usual nod towards editorial
:51:48. > :51:51.independence. It is not very often someone sits in front of a prime
:51:51. > :51:57.minister answers to a Prime Minister, I would like you to
:51:57. > :52:02.change of policy and if you don't change your policy, my organisation
:52:02. > :52:06.can't support you. People may often think that, they may often react
:52:06. > :52:09.that way, but it is not often do that point is put to a prime
:52:09. > :52:15.minister in that fashion. James Landale has been following the
:52:15. > :52:21.day's events. What did you make of what John Major said? It was very
:52:21. > :52:25.interesting if. That excerpt was all about a meeting in the early
:52:25. > :52:29.part of 1997 about one of those crucial meetings between a prime
:52:29. > :52:33.minister and a media baron. There's quite a heavy debate about whether
:52:33. > :52:38.or not John Major is accusing Rupert Murdoch of giving the wrong
:52:38. > :52:42.evidence to the inquiry. Mr Murdoch said at one point in his evidence,
:52:42. > :52:46.I've never asked anything from a prime minister and here is John
:52:46. > :52:50.Major saying he asked me to change my policy. Others say what Rupert
:52:50. > :52:56.Murdoch was referring to was corporate favours, very specific
:52:56. > :53:00.context they were discussing the proposed acquisition of the times
:53:00. > :53:04.with Margaret Thatcher. The other interesting point he has made his
:53:04. > :53:08.he has given a very, very strong warning to the current generation
:53:08. > :53:13.of politicians. He said he failed to reform the media, he should have
:53:13. > :53:16.done, he said it was a missed opportunity. He said that today's
:53:17. > :53:19.politicians are in the last chance saloon, they have to act, they
:53:19. > :53:23.can't not act simply because they might want to curry favour with the
:53:23. > :53:27.media baron in the future. Picking up one of your points about
:53:27. > :53:32.conflicting evidence. Two perspectives. Let's listen to
:53:32. > :53:38.Gordon Brown also giving evidence about a conversation or not with
:53:38. > :53:42.Rupert Murdoch. You are relying on second-hand conversations that are
:53:42. > :53:46.reported by people who are not participants in the events. I don't
:53:46. > :53:50.take that as a serious comment about what happened. Were your
:53:50. > :53:56.aides involved in using the media to force or attempt to force Mr
:53:56. > :54:02.Blair's resignation in 2006? would hope not. Were they involved?
:54:02. > :54:09.I would hope not. I've got no evidence of that. What do you make
:54:09. > :54:13.of that form of words used by Gordon Brown? I would hope not.
:54:13. > :54:19.exactly a denial. No. There's a fair amount of documentary evidence
:54:19. > :54:24.of the scale of the divisions between Camp Blair and camp Brown.
:54:24. > :54:27.That claim was met with a certain degree of incredulity outside the
:54:27. > :54:31.court and within Westminster yesterday. I was referring to
:54:31. > :54:35.something not played in that clip, but about declaring war on Rupert
:54:35. > :54:38.Murdoch and this was about the allegiance which by those News
:54:38. > :54:47.Corporation papers. What has the media made of that evidence from
:54:47. > :54:52.Gordon Brown? They believe that there's a certain degree of history
:54:52. > :54:56.being revised. The media have that view of a lot of the evidence given
:54:56. > :54:59.to the live as an inquiry. A lot of it is about a lot of things that
:54:59. > :55:04.happened in the past. John Major has been trying to give his account
:55:05. > :55:08.of what happened during the ERM exit. One of the side bits of the
:55:08. > :55:13.Leveson Inquiry has been setting the record straight, getting their
:55:13. > :55:17.line across at on stuff which is already out there in all the
:55:17. > :55:21.biographies that have been written since then. If you read Alastair
:55:21. > :55:24.Campbell's diaries, they would give it slightly different account,
:55:24. > :55:30.perhaps, a different emphasis to that which was given by Gordon
:55:30. > :55:35.Brown yesterday. Yes. Difference in opinion is slightly contrary.
:55:35. > :55:40.Anyway, I will leave it there. Thank you.
:55:40. > :55:45.Let's talk about the weather. Over to Adam outside.
:55:45. > :55:48.For once it is actually a nice day if it was February! I have got an
:55:48. > :55:53.umbrella in case it rains and a couple of guests as well. We have
:55:53. > :55:58.got Peter Gibbs, the busy weather presenter, and then Page, a
:55:58. > :56:02.pollster. Is it really that wet? Yes. We have unrealistic
:56:02. > :56:07.expectations of a British summer. British farmers are cool and often
:56:07. > :56:11.quite work. It has not like this everywhere. I've just come back
:56:11. > :56:14.from the north of Scotland and I've got a bit of a suntan. I flew back
:56:14. > :56:20.on the same plane as Danny Alexander. It was a low-cost
:56:20. > :56:24.airline. Does he have a suntan as well? Slightly. Will there be any
:56:24. > :56:27.break-in this cloud? Will it dry up? A glimmer of hope for the end
:56:27. > :56:35.of the month for southern and eastern parts of the UK. It should
:56:35. > :56:38.get a bit warmer, but then the rain sets in across the north-west. I
:56:38. > :56:43.think long-range weather forecasts are like political forecasts, they
:56:43. > :56:47.can be a bit fraught. Is this just weather or is something do so --
:56:47. > :56:51.specific making it this way it? has been the jet stream. It has
:56:51. > :56:55.died south over the last few weeks. It wasn't that long ago that we
:56:55. > :56:58.were getting temperatures in the mid-twenties, at the end of May. We
:56:58. > :57:03.have short-term memories! You have got something that looks quite
:57:03. > :57:06.scientific. At Ipsos MORI we went back and crunched the numbers to
:57:06. > :57:10.see if we could find any relationship between the amount of
:57:10. > :57:14.rain and how people are happy with the Government. The answer is
:57:14. > :57:19.there's not much relationship. It seems to depend more on what the
:57:19. > :57:22.Government does rather than acts of God in terms of how it is doing.
:57:23. > :57:27.Maybe on election days, a lot of rain might favour one party over
:57:27. > :57:32.another, depending on how motivated their supporters are to vote. But
:57:32. > :57:37.over all, no. We are a bit stoic as Brits. We are used to this weather,
:57:37. > :57:42.we just get on with it. You are talking to somebody from Glasgow!
:57:42. > :57:46.Is there any idea that bad weather reflects badly on politicians. It
:57:46. > :57:53.is raining and I hate David Cameron! I don't think there's any
:57:53. > :57:56.evidence of that. For last time he was as unpopular as he is now, he's
:57:56. > :58:00.not as unpopular as some predecessors, but you will remember
:58:00. > :58:04.there were floods in Yorkshire and he went off to Rwanda. That was
:58:04. > :58:07.going to Rwanda rather than the floods, that was when he was in
:58:07. > :58:11.opposition. Voters judge their politicians on their basic
:58:11. > :58:15.competence and not the weather. think I just felt a spot of rain!
:58:15. > :58:21.Back to you in the hot, dry, warm studio.
:58:21. > :58:23.All right! I got the message! There don't seem to be any
:58:23. > :58:28.relations between what people feel about their politicians on the
:58:28. > :58:32.weather, is the wet weather getting you down? It is fantastic. Because
:58:32. > :58:36.politics is dull, what do we retreat to? The weather. Anybody
:58:36. > :58:41.else in the world would think, what are these people on? It is
:58:41. > :58:46.important! I am extremely interested. If it matters to your
:58:46. > :58:51.garden, that is a thing... I grew up in a country where it was either
:58:51. > :58:54.hot and wet or hot and dry. That is really dull weather for top thank
:58:54. > :58:57.you. That's all for today. Thanks to our
:58:57. > :59:00.guests. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now. I'll
:59:00. > :59:03.be here with Andrew at 11.30am tomorrow with all the big political